IF believer In Doctrines of Grace, Why baptists and NOT presby?

Jeremiah 31:31-3
31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more


This was written in a future tense, for in verse 31 it says "the days come". In verse 33 it stated "after those days", which is referencing the days of Jesus ministry here on earth. After He ascended the last time, it is then, that everyone born again had the indwelling of the Spirit in a permanent manner.


Hebrews 8:10-13
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.


Apostle Paul is referring to Jeremiah 31 here, and is showing how Christ fulfilled it at the cross. Notice in verse 12, "and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more". Under the Law, there was a remembrance of their sins. Now, we who are saved, God sees us through the blood of Christ, with our sins blotted out. Not so under the Law. The Law was not faultless, because if it had, then Jesus died in vain.




Hebrews 10:9-18
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


Here in chapter 10, Apostle Paul reiterates what he wrote earlier. Jesus came to set up a covenant between the ones He saves and Himself. Not the CHRISTians and Jews. There is but one covenant, and it is bewtixt Himself and the Church, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, etc.



Galatians 3:9-14
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.


We have now received the same blessing that Abraham was promised by God.

Galatians 3:15-18
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.


The promise that God made Abraham was to his seed, and not seeds. The promise is to the believer, whether they be Jew or Gentile. But the Jew much be converted to Christianity to obtain the promise. They can not be a practicing Jew, failing to believe that Jesus IS Christ, and be part of the covenant betwixt God and the promised seed, the Church, the body of Christ, the bride of the Lamb, etc.

 

It was in the future tense. But "those days" have not come yet. If they have the Great Commission would not have to be preached. How do you account for verse 34? That hasn't taken place yet.

Apostle Paul is referring to Jeremiah 31 here, and is showing how Christ fulfilled it at the cross. Notice in verse 12, "and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more". Under the Law, there was a remembrance of their sins. Now, we who are saved, God sees us through the blood of Christ, with our sins blotted out. Not so under the Law. The Law was not faultless, because if it had, then Jesus died in vain.[/quote]
He is referring directly back to the promises given to the Jews which will be fulfilled in the Kingdom. Certainly he died. He is the better sacrifice. It is their sins that he will remember no more. There are similar verses like that that apply to Gentiles or both Gentiles and Jews. But the context here is the nation of Israel.
Again, how do you account for verse 11? This has not yet taken place. It is yet future, "after those days."

Paul has moved on to a different topic. He has moved on from the promise of Jeremiah 31. Here he is contrasting the OT priest who ministers daily at the temple, offering daily sacrifices. He, writing to Hebrews tempted to go back to that OT system, describes Jesus, our High Priest forever, who after he offered one sacrifice forever, sat down on the right hand of the throne of God. What a contrast that is!

The emphasis in Galatians is far different than that of the book of Hebrews. Here he is contrasting law to grace, or better yet legalism to grace. The sect of the Judaizers had crept in and had led them away.
If they were going to be justified by the law they would have to continue in all the law from birth to death not breaking any of the law in their lifetime (3:10). If they did, but once, they would be cursed. (We, in reality, break the law every day.
But Christ was made a curse for us. He has redeemed us from the curse of the law. We are no longer under the law. For salvation is of faith not of keeping the law.

The emphasis is simply that salvation is by faith. It was for the Jew (see Rom.4:1-5). And it is for us. The only kinship we can claim with Abraham is that we are his spiritual seed and that is all. Salvation is still by grace through faith.
However there will come a time when God will restore the Kingdom to Israel. That is not addressed here, but elsewhere.

 

The difference between your interpretation and mine is that you take your interpretation of Israel and Judah and force it into the context. I take the context and interpret Israel and Judah.

You don't provide much exegesis of the context. The lead up to Hebrews 8 is clearly talking about the work of Jesus Christ and his first comeing. He mentions "a second covenant" and "a new covenant." When Hebrews 9 continues this line of thinking, the talk about the old Covenant of rituals is the the Sinaitic Covenant (Hebrews 9:1-10). Then he explains more fully the new covenant in Christ (Hebrews 9:15-22) as he does in the beginning of Hebrews 8. The quotation of Jeremiah 31 is encased with the focus on a new covenant language provided by the cross as noted in this quoatation

and again in this quotation:

All the context denotes a context of the work of Christ. This book was not written to Jews alone, but to Christians, and the understanding must be that they were redeemed people, redeemed by the work of Jesus Christ. He was not writing to them as Jews, but as people who believed in Jesus Christ.

You seek to turn the entire context on its head to maintain your understanding of two words.

He never mentions another future covenant in the context, but only two, the Siniatic and the New Covenant. The New is rooted in the redemptive work of Christ.

Your believe that our understanding of these two words must go against the entire context goes against exegetical laws.

This is a "gotcha" quote but one that takes a phrase of mine out of context. You take a statement, twist it, and make your gotcha quote to show that you are superior, when you actually have not argument.

When I told you to read primary sources, I did so because you showed ignorance of Covenant Theology and our beliefs. You turned it around to show your "superiority" in using the Bible as your own primary source. First, the issue is not the primacy of scripture, which I hold to and clearly have demonstrated my belief several time son the board. Secondly, the issue was your ignorance of a theology which you misrepresented. Because of your misunderstanding of this theology, you misrepresent our beliefs.

Your "gotcha" answer shows that you think we don't put a high priority on the Bible. Quite the opposite, I agree with Spurgeon in saying that we put the highest priority on the Bible in that we are meticulous in studying the Bible, writing about the Bible, and in study of the Bible. The Bible is our primary source, but we wish to explain it well for everyone.

 

I don't believe so. I continue to ask you for an explanation.

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: (Hebrews 8:8)
And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. (Hebrews 8:11)
--But it appears that you have no explanation for these verses. I have given the context many times. I have given the explanation. There is no possible way that verse 11 has been fulfilled today; if so explain how, when, where, by whom? It is still future as is the rest of the passage.

Yes he is comparing a new covenant with an old covenant, that is true. But there are some passages in there that are a bit more difficult than others and must be taken in the context in which they were stated, that is the OT from which they were taken.
The overall context is a comparison of the OT system to the NT system. There were Jewish Christians ready to go back to the Temple system, and he presents forth arguments why they should not do that.

The book is called the Book of Hebrews for a good reason. They were Jews, and they were redeemed. There are other books just like that. James is one:
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (James 1:1)
To the Jews which are redeemed.
Hebrews is no different. If you ignore this fact, this overall context then you will miss the meaning of the passage every time.

You don't even try to explain Scripture that is in the future. You simply ignore it. When it is pointed out to you, you still ignore it. When Christ comes again he is coming for His People, the nation of Israel. This is one of those passages that alludes to that promise, a promise which is reiterated hundreds of times throughout the Bible. You cannot ignore the covenant made with the Jews. There is still a remnant. Now, having said that, that is not the major theme of this book. That was an aside, you might say, in chapter 8.

No, I don't. I know what the New Covenant means. I also am aware of other promises made in Scripture which cannot be ignored. I am also aware of Scripture so often taken out of Scripture and being used to mean something that it doesn't mean. This is one of them.

You are absolutely wrong here. First notice the title of the thread. It is not about covenant theology. The conversation was about Presbyterian theology. Luke made the statement that "the covenant is one." I disagreed, and gave my reasons why.
Then you blamed me for misrepresenting the covenant position, when I hadn't done referred to the covenant position at all. I had only replied to what Luke had said, because according to Hebrews there is more than one covenant. So why falsely accuse me? Thus my position is simply the Bible.

I wasn't representing or misrepresenting anyone's beliefs; whoever "our beliefs" are, I don't even know. I responded to a post Luke made. I don't know what got under your skin. This thread isn't even about covenant theology.

Again you are wrong in your assessment.

 

Your problem here is that the context of this quotation is that it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ's first coming. You wish to parse Jeremiah 31, but you fail to see that the context by divine Inspiration refers it directly to Christ's divinity.

Yet, the author quotes the Jeremiah 31 again in Hebrews 10:16-17, once again relaying it to the work of Christ to bring redemption to his people

Even Ray Stedman, a dispensational author, states, "Though the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly applies this new covenant to the church." He still sees a future for Israel, but this dispensational commentator clearly believes the New Covenant is applied to the church. Stedman continues and says

This is the case, in the Old Testament where not all Israel was Israel (Romans 9:6).

Thus, even Dispensational commentators acknowledge the context mandates this to be a present reality.

You are arguing a couple of "debated" verses in order to argue your point. However, the context is glaringly clear, this is talking about Jesus' redemptive work.

I think this is a clear case of eisegesis, where the entire context says one thing, but you take a few verses to say another.

 

It is hard to take those few verses and try to make them mean something that they don't mean isn't it? You don't have an answer for that yet do you?

 

There is One people of God, those who been elected out from humanity HGy His will, after His good pleasure BUT

There are timing issues involved here...

Kingdom postponed to national Isreal, so now in Church age, both jews/Gentiles are in body of Christ

Second Coming hapen Kingdom than shall be given to national isreal

So jews/gentiles partake new Covenant here and now in Church Age, jews alive as national isreal at time of Christ receive their promised Earthly Kingdom, while jes/Gentiles before that receive heavenly One!

 

Again, one of your "gotcha" statements. I took someone who is against my view, who supports your own, and he agrees with me on this exegesis. The entire context agrees with me. Your gotcha statements are uncalled for. When I can quote dispensational scholars who agree with my interpretation, and you resort to gotcha statements, you really have made this more about you than about the topic. It is not about me making this say something it is not, it is about you who ignores your own scholars.

 

The New Covenant was given to the Church after isreal refused her Kingdom, now in Church age of grace, both saved jews/gentilesunder NC in the Church, when jesus returns to earth, Kingdom than delivered to national isreal, and Jews come under at that time promised Kingdom gby God in OT to them as a peoples...

 

What do you mean, "ignoring your own scholars"? Who are "my" scholars?
I don't agree with everything Steadman teaches, never did.

 

Having just said that, I will quote Wiersbe who seems to lay down the various positions:

Wiersbe does not leave out Israel. He recognizes the promises that are still to Israel.

 

promises that God made to spiritual Isreal, redeemed/saved out jews are found in New Covenant today, as those messianic Jews part of Body of Christ, but God also will make good promised he made to natural Isreal, in the coming Kingdom to earth established when messiah returns!

 

I've got some news for you Brother DHK. The great commission is what fulfilled(or the beginning of the fulfillment) of verse 34. In the OT, the people only heard God through the speaking of the Prophets. Now, they hear of God by the working of the Spirit.

Psssst!!! I've got a little secret to tell you, Boy, it's a humdinger, too. Come closer and I will tell you. This will be between you and me. The Kingdom is already prepared. Please do not take this as being snotty. I am trying to bring a little levity, so that if we disagree, it will not be in a contentious manner. But the Kingdom is already prepared.


Luke 17:20-21
20 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.



John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.



Jesus has the Kingdom ready. When God tells Him to go get the Bride, He will come and get her, and take her to that glorious place already prepared.

Jeremaih 31 is already fulfilled. The problem is, people want to take an OT passage, and pin it on a yet unfulfilled prophecy. The OT was looking to Jesus coming the FIRST TIME. If the OT was talking about something that was to happen at His second coming, when He hadn't even come the first time, well, that's putting the theological cart before the theological horse. OT scriptures were looking towards the cross, not His return in the Cloud.

Correct. However, we, Spiritually speaking, have the same promise that God made Abraham. Look at what God told Abraham. Thorough Sarah, she would bring forth a huge nation(me paraphrasing here). She could not do this naturally herself. God fulfilled this by sending His Son to die for sinful man. Those who are saved, become Jew "spiritually". This is where we got the same promise that God gave Abraham. The promise was to seed, and not seeds. If God had a plan for both the Gentiles, and the Jews(natural Jews that is), the promise would be to two seeds, and not one.

Israel in the OT was talking about the twelve tribes of Israel/Jacob, and not the nation over there in the middle east. The only way the Jews can get into the Kingdom, is through Jesus Christ. This world is going to melt with fervent heat, the heavens will roll up like a giant scroll, the heavens will pass away with a great noise, etc. All of these show me that this world is going "bye bye" when the end of time comes to this place.

 

Again...that is what premill books say...but not what scripture says.

 

Nice post brother......DHK is locked in a "system' that will not allow him to see outside of its walls. he lacks basic understanding of any other view...his mistaken use of replacement theology shows he does not understand the full scope of what happens in the gospel.

 

DHK....
your complete lack of understanding here is why you cannot see what the scripture teaches...when you make this statement:

You will never see the truth if you cannot grasp this......


You mention "replacement theology"......we believe in expansion theology...perhaps you do not understand this...so instead you come up with charges of heresy...or injustice instead of examining your error.
this is another area where you are far from truth....what you say you believe does not resemble most anything the scripture teaches.....but you just plow stright ahead. Ruiz and others have offered you good teaching to examine , but you do not seem to be able to process it...:type:

 

Sorry Brother, but you are stating a promise to two different seeds, or two promises made to two different seeds. The promise was to Abraham's seed, not seeds.

 

There is not a presby in my town.

 

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:34)
--You are absolutely wrong. This statement is written as an event that is yet to take place, not a work in progress. Where would you get that idea, and what would give you the idea to allegorize Scripture so much?
--They shall teach their neighbor no more.
--They shall no more teach every man saying "Know the Lord," for they shall all know me, from the least to the greatest.
--Your statement indicates that you may be an ammillenialist. I am not. Things are not getting better and better; they are getting worse and worse. Don't you ever listen to the news or read a newspaper?
Every man does not know the Lord. This is a fact. These things have not taken place and your philosophically based theology cannot answer this.

No doubt, Christ is preparing a kingdom. That kingdom will be for both Jews and Gentiles. But as Paul says: "So, then, all Israel shall be saved."
And John says:
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Revelation 1:7)
--He is coming for the Jews to set up his kingdom. We also will be a part of it. We will rule and reign with him. The thrust of Jer.31 is the restoration of Israel.

He was speaking to the Pharisees who demanded external evidences of a physical kingdom. Jesus was emphasizing that his kingdom is spiritual. He said the same thing to Herod. My kingdom is from above.

Jesus is about to go to the cross. He is saying some comforting words to his disciples. He will prepare a place for them. They will be with him there, at the same place where he will be.

The next prophetic event in God's historical timeline is the rapture. At the time the bride of Christ will be raptured. Yes, he will take his bride to that glorious place that he has prepared.

Jeremiah 31 is only fulfilled in part just as Joel's prophecy as quoted by Peter in Acts 2 is only fulfilled in part. Many prophecies have more than one fulfillment. If verse 34 is fulfilled we would see it fulfilled, along with all the promises given in Isaiah 11, but we don't see that either do we? The same thing goes in Mat.24,25, where both chapters have verses that apply to the rapture, the Tribulation, the Second Coming and the Kingdom. They all don't simply apply to one event. If you can't differentiate between the different events being spoken of then you are in trouble. The same principle applies here. You must be able to divide the word of God "rightly."

That is a lame argument, as either way "seed" would not be used in the plural. It simply isn't used that way when speaking of genealogies.

Yes, that will eventually come to pass, but not until a thousand year millennial kingdom occurs first--a kingdom promised to the Jews. There the Jews will be restored as a nation.

 

Yes I am amil, and proud of it too. The OT was fulfilled when Jesus hung, bled, and died on the cross, and was risen, and ascended back to the Father. And I am absolutely right. The likes of Lahaye and his "Left Behind" series, has distorted the view of the end times. When Jesus comes again, He will do so in the cloud. We will rise to meet Him in the air. He isn't coming to set the Kingdom up here. I hear all the time, that Jesus and His angels are coming to fight satan here, and then the Kingdom will be set up here on earth. Look, when Jesus rose that third morning, victorious over death, hell and the grave, He defeated satan right then. Satan isn't fighting a losing battle, he is fighting a LOST battle.

Where and when did I ever say things are getting better? I sure haven't. According to all that is going on, it won't be long until Jesus returns. And my theology is not "philosopically based" either. This stuff didn't get started until a teenage girl(13?) came and told some people that she had a dream that Jesus was coming back twice. Well, they went and read and came up with "theology". I wished I could remember the name, and the link where I read one time that a man who was prominent in the "dispy" teachings recanted everything he wrote on his death bed. I honestly read this, but that has been over two years ago, or more.

I won't be part of it here. I will gone back to glory as this world dissolves like snow in summer. Look at what is stated in Rev. 1:7 you posted. He is coming in the clouds. He isn't coming down here. He is coming, lifting us out of this sin cursed world, taking us home to heaven, while this world is destoyed.

Correct. His Kingdom is from above. He will come and gather us, and take us there, too.

He said He was going to prepare a place for them. He then stated, if I go away, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself. That where I am, there you may be also. He was going to the cross, to make the way possible for them to go where He was going. By His death, burial, and resurrection, He made the way for them, and us, too. He also stated that in my Father's house ARE(present tense) many mansions. If it were not so, I would have told you.

Oh, you mean the secret event, where you can be talking to someone, and "poof" they're gone, and you won't know what happened? Another LaHayeism that has muddied the end times. If they are raptured out, then Christ must be coming back twice, huh? Jesus is coming back, but it is a one time event.

You need to give this some more thought, Brother. I am not being mean, but this "rapture" stuff is dividing us CHRISTians. I can tolerate a lot of things, but if someone comes to my home church, and begins preaching this stuff, I will sing him down thisquick. People like Darby, who started it, and LaHaye, who keep fanning the flames, have distorted the end times view.

Talk about "wrongly dividing the word? The promise was made to Abraham's seed(singular), and not seeds(plural). How much more plain can that get? If there is a covenant with the Church, and a seperate one with the Jews, you either have one promise for two seeds, or two promises for two seeds. Either way, thay aren't correct. The promise is for the bride of the Lamb, the body of Christ, the Church, of which, Christ is the Head.



Yes, that will eventually come to pass, but not until a thousand year millennial kingdom occurs first--a kingdom promised to the Jews. There the Jews will be restored as a nation.[/QUOTE]